Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK UKOLN is supported by: dmag (Digital Media Access Group) is hosted by the University of Dundee Co-Authors: Andy Heath, Helen Petrie, Fraser Hamilton & Lawrie Phipps David Sloan DMAG University of Dundee Dundee, UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/w4a-2006/ This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)

W4A 2005: Reprise At W4A 2005 we presented “ Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity… ”: The practical difficulties of using a “standard” to encapsulate design requirements to accommodate a diverse set of needs under a diverse set of circumstances The achievements and limitations of WCAG in supporting this The resultant difficulties (and absurdities) from legislation and policy – that makes inappropriate reference to WCAG Using the example of the e-learning sector we pointed the way to a more holistic view of Web accessibility We received many positive comments on the ideas we presented

At W4A 2005 we presented “ Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity… ”:

The practical difficulties of using a “standard” to encapsulate design requirements to accommodate a diverse set of needs under a diverse set of circumstances

The achievements and limitations of WCAG in supporting this

The resultant difficulties (and absurdities) from legislation and policy – that makes inappropriate reference to WCAG

Using the example of the e-learning sector we pointed the way to a more holistic view of Web accessibility

We received many positive comments on the ideas we presented

One Year On – Where are We? WCAG 2.0 is ever closer The “baseline” concept introduced with WCAG 2.0 is an excellent development But – are we still trying to promote a “universally accessible Web” at the expense of “optimally accessible information, communication, education, entertainment, services…”?

WCAG 2.0 is ever closer

The “baseline” concept introduced with WCAG 2.0 is an excellent development

But – are we still trying to promote a “universally accessible Web” at the expense of “optimally accessible information, communication, education, entertainment, services…”?

Limitations of the WAI Model WAI model relies on conformant Web sites, conformant authoring tools, conformant user agents … and conformant users! A common complaint of “standardistas” – “ the user needs to take responsibility… ” There is value in this argument – but there are practical shortcomings And user technophobia/laziness/lethargy is only one obstacle How many users know they are “disabled”?

WAI model relies on conformant Web sites, conformant authoring tools, conformant user agents

… and conformant users!

A common complaint of “standardistas” – “ the user needs to take responsibility… ”

There is value in this argument – but there are practical shortcomings

And user technophobia/laziness/lethargy is only one obstacle

How many users know they are “disabled”?

The Importance of Context We argue Web accessibility is about supporting users achieve real world goals From Beyer & Holzblatt (1998) – the more you know about your target audience the more you can design to support them So the goal of “universal accessibility” has changed to supporting a defined set of users in the best possible way… How can we use WCAG to achieve this? DS  BK

We argue Web accessibility is about supporting users achieve real world goals

From Beyer & Holzblatt (1998) – the more you know about your target audience the more you can design to support them

So the goal of “universal accessibility” has changed to supporting a defined set of users in the best possible way…

How can we use WCAG to achieve this?

The Challenges To summarise: WAI has been a great political success The underlying principles are widely accepted However The WAI model has its limitations Accessibility of digital resources can be provided in a variety of ways Blended approaches may be relevant in some areas Other areas may have differing views and definitions of "accessibility" and disability (cf IMS AccessForAll) The challenges: Do we ignore such complexities? Do we abandon the WAI approach and look for alternatives? Do we look for an approach which can leverage WAI's successes whilst allowing for a diversity of solutions?

To summarise:

WAI has been a great political success

The underlying principles are widely accepted

However

The WAI model has its limitations

Accessibility of digital resources can be provided in a variety of ways

Blended approaches may be relevant in some areas

Other areas may have differing views and definitions of "accessibility" and disability (cf IMS AccessForAll)

The challenges:

Do we ignore such complexities?

Do we abandon the WAI approach and look for alternatives?

Do we look for an approach which can leverage WAI's successes whilst allowing for a diversity of solutions?

Holistic Approach Kelly, Phipps & Swift developed a blended approach to e-learning accessibility This approach: Focusses on the needs of the learner Requires accessible learning outcomes , not necessarily e-learning resources Follow-up work awarded prize for Best Research Paper at ALT-C 2005 E-learning conference This approach reflects emphasis in UK on blended learning (rather than e-learning)

Kelly, Phipps & Swift developed a blended approach to e-learning accessibility

This approach:

Focusses on the needs of the learner

Requires accessible learning outcomes , not necessarily e-learning resources

Accessibility in Context A framework has been developed which places accessibility & usability within a wider context: The context A range of policies A compliance regime Purpose Sector Funding Resources Context Accessibility/Usability Privacy Policies … Finance External Self-assessment Penalties Learning Compliance Digital Library Programme Broken Standards Research … External factors: Institutional issues (funds, expertise, policies, security…) External factors: Legal issues; cultural factors; … This approach embraces relativism and context rather than the current absolute approach Accessibility guidelines should be usable in wider context

A framework has been developed which places accessibility & usability within a wider context:

The context

A range of policies

A compliance regime

Articulating the Approach The "Tangram Metaphor" developed to avoid checklist / automated approach: W3C model has limitations Jigsaw model implies single solution Tangram model seeks to avoid such problems This approach: Encourages developers to think about a diversity of solutions Focus on 'pleasure' it provides to user

The "Tangram Metaphor" developed to avoid checklist / automated approach:

W3C model has limitations

Jigsaw model implies single solution

Tangram model seeks to avoid such problems

This approach:

Encourages developers to think about a diversity of solutions

Focus on 'pleasure' it provides to user

Tangram Model Model allows us to: Focuses on end solution rather than individual components Provided solutions tailored for end user Doesn't limit scope (can you do better than WAI AAA?) Make use of automated checking – but ensures emphasis is on user satisfaction Guidelines/standards for/from: WAI Usability Organisational Dyslexic Learning difficulties Legal Management (resources, …) Interoperability Accessibility metadata Mobile Web …

Model allows us to:

Focuses on end solution rather than individual components

Provided solutions tailored for end user

Doesn't limit scope (can you do better than WAI AAA?)

Make use of automated checking – but ensures emphasis is on user satisfaction

Guidelines/standards for/from:

WAI

Usability

Organisational

Dyslexic

Learning difficulties

Legal

Management (resources, …)

Interoperability

Accessibility metadata

Mobile Web

…

Tangram Model & Testability "WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements …" (nb. automated & human testing  ) Issues: What about WCAG principles that don't have defined success criteria (e.g. "content must be understandable")? What about 'baselines' – context only known locally What about differing models or / definitions of 'accessibility'? Note vendors of accessibility testing services will market WCAG tools e.g. see posting on BSI PAS 78 Tangram model can be used within WCAG Distinguish between testable (ALT tags) and subjective (content understandable) Supports baselines Baseline 1 Testable

"WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements …" (nb. automated & human testing  )

Issues:

What about WCAG principles that don't have defined success criteria (e.g. "content must be understandable")?

What about 'baselines' – context only known locally

What about differing models or / definitions of 'accessibility'?

Note vendors of accessibility testing services will market WCAG tools e.g. see posting on BSI PAS 78

Tangram model can be used within WCAG

Distinguish between testable (ALT tags) and subjective (content understandable)

Supports baselines

The Cathedral & The Bazaar WAI Approach: Large-scale and ambitious –but slow-moving External dependencies (e.g. on legal systems) Based on single approach ("you must …") Web-centric approach Cathedral approach to development Holistic Approach: Modular & can be more rapid-moving & responsive Based on diversity of approaches - "seek to …" Covers Web, other IT and real-world accessibility Bazaar approach to development " I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say “ J Neilson WCAG 2.0’s ‘baseline’ seems to recognise a contextual view 

WAI Approach:

Large-scale and ambitious –but slow-moving

External dependencies (e.g. on legal systems)

Based on single approach ("you must …")

Web-centric approach

Cathedral approach to development

Holistic Approach:

Modular & can be more rapid-moving & responsive

Based on diversity of approaches - "seek to …"

Covers Web, other IT and real-world accessibility

Bazaar approach to development

" I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say “ J Neilson

The Legal Framework This approach is well-suited for the UK legal framework: SENDA/DDA legislation requires " organisations to take reasonable measures to ensure people with disabilities are not discriminated against unfairly " Note that the legislation is: Technologically neutral Backwards and forwards compatible Avoids version control complexities … The legislation also covers usability, as well as accessibility

This approach is well-suited for the UK legal framework:

SENDA/DDA legislation requires " organisations to take reasonable measures to ensure people with disabilities are not discriminated against unfairly "

Note that the legislation is:

Technologically neutral

Backwards and forwards compatible

Avoids version control complexities

…

The legislation also covers usability, as well as accessibility

Conclusions To conclude: WAI has provided a valuable starting point Need to develop a richer underlying model Need for Web accessibility to be placed in wider content Contextual approach & tangram metaphor aim to help inform such developments Should the WAI approach be more open about contextualisation or should this be applied externally? There's a need to an evidence-based approach and less ideology

To conclude:

WAI has provided a valuable starting point

Need to develop a richer underlying model

Need for Web accessibility to be placed in wider content

Contextual approach & tangram metaphor aim to help inform such developments

Should the WAI approach be more open about contextualisation or should this be applied externally?

There's a need to an evidence-based approach and less ideology

Questions Questions are welcome Note resources cited in the talk are bookmarked in del.icio.us using tag '' w4a-2006-sloan-kelly "

Questions are welcome